What is the difference in Protestants being "saved" and Catholic salvation?

[PRmerger]

Roman Catholics believe they are continually being saved through the performance of good works of charity and the sacramental graces they believe are received from the doling out of sacraments by their church.

This is not a correct articulation of Catholicism, Samson.

Catholics take the Scriptures in their entirety, not snippets only the snippets that aren’t difficult to accept, and believe that this is how we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

 

[eazyduzit]

This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Scripture which says, explicitly, that baptism IS salvific.

In the first encyclical you ever read it says it, eazy.

1 Peter 3:21.

The only thing contradictory is your way of interpreting. Scripture can say anything if you isolate a few words and ignore the rest of a verse. For example, Mt. 24:17 can be made to say that hair should not be tied up on top of ones head if I isolate the words “top not come down” but that would be an improper use of the text.

So to give the text a fair hearing, we need to read and consider the whole verse, not just a few words and let it say what it will, and not reject it if it doesn’t agree with our own much beloved and time honored Traditions.

1Pt3:21And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body [physical dunking in water] , but as a RESPONSE TO GOD FROM A CLEAN CONSCIENCE. [A conscience that has already believed and repented] It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.NLT.

This is the whole verse. We must notice that there is a “but” in the middle of it. What does this word do? (excuse me for returning to remedial English) It changes or replaces what is stated before the “but” with what comes after. So, what Peter is saying is that it is our response to the Gospel that saves.

And this is a good thing because Peter does not then contradict what he has just said in ch.1:23 “Being born again… by the word of God…”

As a " Bible Christian" I must live by every word of God and not just the part that serves my particular slant.

Scripture must lead me. I am not to lead scripture.

 

[Augustine3]

The only thing contradictory is your way of interpreting. Scripture can say anything if you isolate a few words and ignore the rest of a verse.

So who decides which interpretation of scripture is correct?

Before you say we need to consider the context, linguistics, historic background etc. both Catholics and Protestants claim they use these tools yet only one of them is right.

So who gets to decide who is right?

 

[Augustine3]

and not reject it if it doesn’t agree with our own much beloved and time honored Traditions.
.

It just so happens that part of the Catholic Tradition was recorded into writing and it’s what you call scripture the word of God

 

[PRmerger]

The only thing contradictory is your way of interpreting.

Well, this sounds like you’re being a magisterium.

You’re telling me that there’s a correct way to interpret Scripture. And it’s the way that you declare it to be.

Isn’t that exactly what you object to in the magisterium?

Curious that you reserve for yourself what you object to in the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

As a " Bible Christian" I must live by every word of God and not just the part that serves my particular slant.

So, I’m just curious. Does your pastor only re-marry divorcees who have been victims of adultery?

Scripture must lead me. I am not to lead scripture.

Very Catholic, this!

 

[JMM1957]

The only thing contradictory is your way of interpreting. Scripture can say anything if you isolate a few words and ignore the rest of a verse. For example, Mt. 24:17 can be made to say that hair should not be tied up on top of ones head if I isolate the words “top not come down” but that would be an improper use of the text.

So to give the text a fair hearing, we need to read and consider the whole verse, not just a few words and let it say what it will, and not reject it if it doesn’t agree with our own much beloved and time honored Traditions.

1Pt3:21And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body [physical dunking in water] , but as a RESPONSE TO GOD FROM A CLEAN CONSCIENCE. [A conscience that has already believed and repented] It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.NLT.

This is the whole verse. We must notice that there is a “but” in the middle of it. What does this word do? (excuse me for returning to remedial English) It changes or replaces what is stated before the “but” with what comes after. So, what Peter is saying is that it is our response to the Gospel that saves.

And this is a good thing because Peter does not then contradict what he has just said in ch.1:23 “Being born again… by the word of God…”

As a " Bible Christian" I must live by every word of God and not just the part that serves my particular slant.

Scripture must lead me. I am not to lead scripture.

Your understanding, or I should say misunderstanding, of this “one” verse in Scripture is a perfect example of why there needs to be an authoritative interpreter of the Bible, the true Church that Jesus established.

In 2 Peter 1:19-20, he says,** “Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know, this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.”**

So, looking at 1 Peter 3:21-22, “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

I’m not sure what Bible you use for your quotes, but mine, The New American Bible uses the words “prefigured baptism” instead of yours which says, “picture of baptism”. IMO, two different meanings. Prefigured is defined as,“to show or represent beforehand by a figure or type; foreshadowing.” Noah and the others were saved through water, as we are now through baptism, this is what Peter was saying. True, Noah had faith in God and was open to God’s grace, but the water completed the process. Baptism is an inward cleansing (clear conscience) not an outward cleansing (dirt).

 

[Porknpie]

Scripture can say anything if you isolate a few words and ignore the rest of a verse.

Or if you ignore the preceding part of a verse:

when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21

Followed by:

Baptism, which corresponds to this [8 persons being saved through water], now saves you,

Scripture can not any more explicit.

 

[JMM1957]

Well, this sounds like you’re being a magisterium.

You’re telling me that there’s a correct way to interpret Scripture. And it’s the way that you declare it to be.

Isn’t that exactly what you object to in the magisterium?

Curious that you reserve for yourself what you object to in the CC.

I sure wish easy would tell us why we should believe as he does, rather than how we believe. Why does he have all authority over the Scriptures?

 

[JMM1957]

The truth is there have always been small communities of independent Christians. We just don’t know much about them, but one such group that comes to mind are the Waldenses who lived in the mountains of northern Italy where no one bothered them and without the need to be political or powerful, they maintained a purer form of the Gospel.

Are you equating “independence” with maintaining a purer form of the Gospel? Would that also be saying they indulged in private interpretation of Scripture?

 

[benhur]

Source?

“In Ecclus. 23:23 it is used expressly of the sin of an adulteress.We may also remark that metaphorically idolatry is often called by this name, whereas, since Israel is supposed to be married to the Lord, the breaking of this bend by the worship of false gods might more strictly be named adultery.” from Pulpit Commentary

 

[benhur]

Ben, I’m confused by this comment.

When scripture is silent and Catholic’s defend scripture…doing so is “legalistic”

Conversely, when discussing saved by “faith alone”, I’ve also read accusations of Catholics being “legalistic” when listing everything else scripture says that we must do to be saved.

So the term “legalistic” (a very protestant term) seems to be used in any case to support one’s opinion, whether the bible is silent, or defending one’s opinion when scripture is explicit.

Legalism is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, maybe legalistic was the wrong word,but maybe not. Scripture is not silent on the matter. Legalism derives from what is written more so than what is not. Legalism is generally to be contrasted to mercy, grace forgiveness and needs wisdom to balance all things. I mean according to the law we should have no discussion for breaking marriage vows requires death,stoning by the perpetrator.

We are off topic , but will back off of any critiques of others and what they have posted. It seems any interpretation is to be strict (legal ?), for how else could we cry for mercy and grace with a broken heart ?

Blesings

 

[PRmerger]

“In Ecclus. 23:23 it is used expressly of the sin of an adulteress.We may also remark that metaphorically idolatry is often called by this name, whereas, since Israel is supposed to be married to the Lord, the breaking of this bend by the worship of false gods might more strictly be named adultery.” from Pulpit Commentary

Ecclus? What’s that?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you, save me the trouble

Ben, does your pastor in your church ONLY re-marry divorcees who were cheated on?

benhur? Would you mind answering the above?

 

[In_His_Grace]

Ecclus? What’s that?

If I’m not mistakes Ecclus. = Ecclesiasticus = Sirach

Sirach 23:23
For first of all, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High;
second, she has committed an offense against her husband;
and third, she has committed adultery through harlotry
and brought forth children by another man.

In His Grace

 

[Porknpie]

Well, maybe legalistic was the wrong word,but maybe not.

ok

We are off topic , but will back off of any critiques of others and what they have posted. It seems any interpretation is to be strict (legal ?), for how else could we cry for mercy and grace with a broken heart ?

Blesings We’re not off topic as I was reference Catholic’s being called “legalistic” for listing all what we must do to be saved, contrasted to saved by “faith alone.” I’m always befuddled by this accusation…as Catholic’s are just quoting scripture itself.

Just trying to be a good bible Christian.

Blessings back Ben.

 

[Porknpie]

We are off topic , but will back off of any critiques of others and what they have posted.

OK, fair enough.

We’re not off topic as I was reference Catholic’s being called “legalistic” for listing all what we must do to be saved, contrasted to saved by “faith alone.” I’m always befuddled by this accusation…as Catholic’s are just quoting scripture itself.

Just trying to be a good bible Christian.

Blessings back Ben.

 

[PRmerger]

If I’m not mistakes Ecclus. = Ecclesiasticus = Sirach

Sirach 23:23
For first of all, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High;
second, she has committed an offense against her husband;
and third, she has committed adultery through harlotry
and brought forth children by another man.

In His Grace

Ah. I see, then.

So porneia is used in this original text?

You are a subscriber to the Greek Septuagint being the correct version of the OT Bible, yes?

 

[rinnie]

If Catholics are Christians what are the steps they take to receive salvation?
Protestants believe Romans 10:9 & 10. Confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and you shall be saved.

Well to begin with I guess you can say the first step we take is the step you quoted to us we must take and that is to confess with you mouth. We do that in the Sacrament of Confession.

As Jesus told Peter and his Apostles on the day of Pentecost, I give you the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins. What would be the reason to confess with our mouths, to whom? and for what reason? if they did not have the power to forgive our sins in the name of God.

Although the Sacrament of Confession does not replace asking for forgiveness to others we hurt, they can forgive us for what we did, but cannot take away our sin. A priest has this power, none other.

 

[clem456]

If Catholics are Christians what are the steps they take to receive salvation?

1. take a bath in the font of life.

Protestants believe Romans 10:9 & 10. Confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and you shall be saved.

Ok.
Let me ask you a question:
What do you mean by “believe in your heart”?